PIEDMONT, CALIFORNIA—In the early 20th century, a group of wealthy people on unincorporated land chose not to join nearby Oakland, and instead decided to found the city of Piedmont. Large, stately homes and a handful of businesses defined the city. Today, the town-on-the-hill has only 11,000 residents.

But if the local police chief has her way, Piedmont will become even more unique. The chief is pushing for Piedmont to become one of the few cities in America to install automatic license plate readers (LPR) at its city borders—in this case, they would be mounted above each of the 30 roads leading into town. If successful, Piedmont would be the second wealthy Bay Area community with such a system. (Tiburon, in nearby Marin County, approved LPRs more than three years ago for the only two roads leading into and out of town. Sugar Land, Texas, approvedsimilar measures for its municipal borders in November 2012.)

“I think there's a good chance we will do it to some level,” Rikki Goede, the police chief, told Ars on Monday. “It's an investigative tool being used as a force-multiplier. That's what tech is all about, helping us be more efficient and at the end of the day, keeping our communities safe. If technology can help with that, we should be for that.”

The Piedmont Police Department is currently awaiting a proposal from PIPS, a leading LPR vendor, and hopes to present that plan to the city government in the coming months. The PPD already has one mobile LPR, positioned on a patrol car.

As we reported last year, Federal Signal Corporation (FSC), which sells LPRs under its PIPS brand name, says it has sold 20,000 mobile systems across North America and another 15,000 fixed devices across the United States and the United Kingdom.

"We work with the 25 largest cities in the United States, over 100 cities in the US and over 200 in North America, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and in Mexico," said Tim O'Leary, a company vice president, in an interview with Ars in 2012. "We think the market is growing at eight to 10 percent, adjusted growth rate, annually."

Burglaries on the rise

As we reported last year, the scanners can read 60 license plates per second, then match observed plates against a "hot list" of wanted vehicles, stolen cars, or criminal suspects. LPRs have increasingly become a mainstay of law enforcement nationwide. Many law enforcement agencies tout them as a highly effective "force multiplier" for catching bad guys, most notably burglars, car thieves, child molesters, kidnappers, terrorists, and—potentially—undocumented immigrants.

Today, tens of thousands of LPRs are being used by law enforcement agencies all over the country—practically every week, local media around the country report on some LPR expansion. But the system's unchecked and largely unmonitored use raises significant privacy concerns. License plates, dates, times, and locations of all cars seen are kept in law enforcement databases for months or even years at a time. In the worst case, the New York State Police keeps all of its LPR data indefinitely. No universal standard governs how long data can or should be retained.

So what worries Piedmont enough to call for LPRs? Burglaries.

Chief Goede said the number of burglaries jumped from 90 in 2011 up to 135 in 2012. While that may be peanuts compared to what she experienced in her last job as assistant police chief of the San Jose Police Department (and its population of nearly 1 million), it’s still important for a community like Piedmont.

“You have to keep in mind, what Tiburon can do and Piedmont can do—San Jose can't do [because of its size and financial constraints.]” Still, she didn’t think that LPRs would instantly solve Piedmont’s problems. She sees them as part of the “three prongs” of good policing.

“You've got to have a good well-staffed police department that does problem solving,” she said. “You’ve got to have community collaboration, and a community that's invested in the community and calls the police and reports suspicious activity. The third is technology. Those three are what creates a safe community. One's not going to get rid of the other, they have to be equally strong.”

Civil liberties lurk in the background

Not surprisingly, the expanded use of LPRs has drawn the ire of privacy watchdogs. In late July 2012, the American Civil Liberties Union and its affiliates sent requests to local police departments and state agencies across 38 states to request information on how LPRs are used.

Part of the fear is that a police officer could potentially have a substantial record of movement for specific cars moving in and out of the city.

Goede said that for now, her department had not consulted with any civil liberties groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union or the Electronic Frontier Foundation. She acknowledged that it was a “challenge” to balance the two concerns.

“ALPR cameras can be used with minimal impact on individual liberties, but they can also be used to record each time a visitor or resident enters or exits a city, retain that information indefinitely, allow that information to be used without restrictions or oversight, and even share that information with other agencies in order to build a robust profile of an individual’s whereabouts, activities, and associations,” said Chris Conley, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union.

“We would be happy to talk with the Piedmont police department to discuss the costs as well as the benefits of an ALPR system, and to encourage the department to establish policies and safeguards that recognize the potential impact on individual privacy of ALPR prior to purchasing or using cameras.”

Still, Chief Goede feels confident that her department would impose adequate privacy restrictions to keep the LPR database from being abused. She said this includes limiting access to such data for criminal investigations only.

"[But] communities are not going to just want technology to make them safer, they're going to demand that we use technology to make them safer,” she added.

Highland Park Texas is surrounded by Dallas. Actually there's Highland Park and to the immediate north University Park. Collectively they're known as the Park Cities. Dallas encompasses both though and has on multiple occasions talked about annexing one or both, only to be rebuffed each time. It's the same sort of set up as Piedmont.

Yet another argument for being armed. When crime jumps 50%, time to protect yourself.

So considering most break-ins occur while people aren't home, should I mount turrets and hope my kids don't set them off when they come home from school?

Or are you suggesting I just stay home all day.

I prefer real deterrents to crime when possible, not some vigilante justice as a last resort. People who are obsessed with guns are obsessed with the notion of just shooting criminals. I personally would rather stop criminals from forming (unlikely) or give them a reason to try someone else or not bother at all (more likely).

Everyone is so concerned with their privacy in terms of government entities, yet we give Apple and Google information on everything about us freely.

Lets play the "who has more to gain by destroying our privacy" game and place our concern there.

Let's also consider who could do the most damage. Corporations as nasty as they can be have a single fatal flaw: They require your consent before you do business with them. Governments have no such limitations. They can tax and imprison you at any time.

Just because right now, in most first world countries, governments are relatively peaceful doesn't mean that our relative freedom couldn't collapse at any time. The historical aka normal human condition has been one of oppressive governments.

It seems like eventually they will want facial recognition so they can track the people coming in and out. I don't see this as reasonable for any agency. It's cumbersome for a reason. It always individuals to live their lives and not worry that someone in the government will have a personal grudge get into a position of power and exploit said information. However I could have taken my fear too far for a reasonable person...

Yet another argument for being armed. When crime jumps 50%, time to protect yourself.

I don't think the percentage rise is a very good metric when used in isolation. If the crime rate rose from 2 burglaries to 3 burglaries (in a population of 11000), that would also be 50%. Likewise if it went from 5000 to 7500. In the first case the risk is negligible and you probably introduce more risk by having a gun. In the second case why did you wait so long to get one?

Actual risk here has risen to 1.2% percent per year. If the risk is primarily burglaries while residents are not home, your security investment should be in better locks, in security systems and monitoring, maybe cameras, a dog, etc. The gun won't help. If the risk was primarily home invasion, a gun might be an appropriate choice.

Sigh. Stupid people are stupid. Preventing crime isn't as simple jacking up the police and increasing surveilance. That only catches criminals faster and more frequently, thusly just displacing people from society into a prison. And becoming reliant of technology to gather infinitely more data on people just isn't a replacement for proper social constructs and a healthy amount of fear. Crime will never cease to exist. You have to accept that it can happen and just live with it.

Maybe next time, rich people won't build a town in the middle of a ghetto and cry when they don't understand why they are getting robbed. Just do like every other rich entity, buy em out and kick em out or build a bigger wall...*rolls eyes*

There are actually quite a few cities completely encompassed by Houston. West University, Southside Place, Bunker Hill Village, Hedwig Village, Hilshire Village, Hunters Creek Village, Piney Point Village, etc. There are also a few that will almost certainly be surrounded in time, like Jersey Village. This is largely a result of Houston's annexation strategy, which is to get the commercial strips along major roads first (for the taxes), and sidestep the drama of annexing residential areas as long as possible. This often leads to active residential areas organizing and incorporating before Houston gets around to annexing them.

Sigh. Stupid people are stupid. Preventing crime isn't as simple jacking up the police and increasing surveilance. That only catches criminals faster and more frequently, thusly just displacing people from society into a prison. And becoming reliant of technology to gather infinitely more data on people just isn't a replacement for proper social constructs and a healthy amount of fear. Crime will never cease to exist. You have to accept that it can happen and just live with it.

If crime rates were equal everywhere, then this would be a valid argument. They aren't though. Crime rates in practice are affected by enforcement, and also by other factors like the economy. It makes sense to take action to change those rates. You can argue which measures are most effective, but the argument that if you can't eliminate 100% of crime you shouldn't bother to eliminate any is just, well, dumb.

This sort of technology is so easy to abuse that I think it is likely that it will be abused. If your plan is to rely on people having restraint and not using the power you give them, then your plan will fail. I would advise people to resist this sort of thing. It will get out of hand quickly.

If people are concerned about burglaries, then they can install cameras on their own property.

Sigh. Stupid people are stupid. Preventing crime isn't as simple jacking up the police and increasing surveilance. That only catches criminals faster and more frequently, thusly just displacing people from society into a prison. And becoming reliant of technology to gather infinitely more data on people just isn't a replacement for proper social constructs and a healthy amount of fear. Crime will never cease to exist. You have to accept that it can happen and just live with it.

Maybe next time, rich people won't build a town in the middle of a ghetto and cry when they don't understand why they are getting robbed. Just do like every other rich entity, buy em out and kick em out or build a bigger wall...*rolls eyes*

Low-profile crimes like burglaries are made based on a risk-analysis. It needn't be advanced, though. If you increase the risk by increasing the chance of getting caught, maybe the criminals will still steal, but they will move to safer grounds. Petty crimes are made usually because the person that commits them thinks he won't get caught.

To me crimes are like water on an uneven surface. Whenever a part of it rises above a certain level, the water simple shifts. You still can have pockets here and there, but most water will relocate. (This is especially obvious in the case of Oakland, an understaffed PD throws most officers to the really dangerous places, so the least dangerous, thus least protected, ones get the most petty crimes)

I guess I am in the minority here, but I think this is awesome. I obey the law so I could care less if the government had records of when I was entering/leaving a city in my car.. I don't see how it will cause any harm normal citizens.

I live in the Seattle area and some of smaller city's outside of Seattle are talking about using these scanners on the patrol cars (if they haven't already started). And I think that's a great idea...going to use a video game term here....its like having a passive super beneficial ability that's always on.

It is not about if you don't commit a crime you should have nothing to worry about. That mentality in itself is flawed because you are then agreeing to give up a constitutional amendment for others when it would have only been your choice to not be concerned with your personal privacy. If you do not care about that then you can always publish when you enter and leave any location or area. But this is saying no matter who enters and leaves they have no choice but to be monitored.

I guess I am in the minority here, but I think this is awesome. I obey the law so I could care less if the government had records of when I was entering/leaving a city in my car.. I don't see how it will cause any harm normal citizens.

I live in the Seattle area and some of smaller city's outside of Seattle are talking about using these scanners on the patrol cars (if they haven't already started). And I think that's a great idea...going to use a video game term here....its like having a passive super beneficial ability that's always on.

If they were smart, they'd also institute a congestion charge/toll, London-style. Less traffic, free money.

I was thinking Oakland should set up toll booths at every Oakland/Piedmont border road. "You want a gated community? Here, we'll do it for you!"

Regarding the technology, if the citizens of the town support the plan, sure, go ahead. It probably will reduce crime somewhat. And sooner or later the police will be caught horribly abusing the system to spy on their neighbors. The response, as always, will be "no one could have predicted such a thing would happen!"

Maybe next time, rich people won't build a town in the middle of a ghetto and cry when they don't understand why they are getting robbed.

Oakland isn't all "ghetto", but I certainly understand that it may seem that way to people who aren't familiar with the area. Piedmont itself is surrounded by upscale districts like Rockridge and Montclair - and those districts are surrounded by other non-"ghetto" districts.

Piedmont knows exactly why their crime rate has increased: Oakland's under-performing, under-resourced, and under-funded police department. The upscale districts of Oakland get very little in the way of police presence because, obviously, the few cops the city have are assigned to areas where crime is rampant. The bad guys know this and take advantage.

As far as Piedmont getting cameras? Well... good luck with that. The criminals are not stupid. Their vehicles are sporting stolen plates, dealer plates, or no plates. I know, because I'm a member of a few of the neighborhood mailing lists.

I guess I am in the minority here, but I think this is awesome. I obey the law so I could care less if the government had records of when I was entering/leaving a city in my car.. I don't see how it will cause any harm normal citizens.

I live in the Seattle area and some of smaller city's outside of Seattle are talking about using these scanners on the patrol cars (if they haven't already started). And I think that's a great idea...going to use a video game term here....its like having a passive super beneficial ability that's always on.

It is not about if you don't commit a crime you should have nothing to worry about. That mentality in itself is flawed because you are then agreeing to give up a constitutional amendment for others when it would have only been your choice to not be concerned with your personal privacy. If you do not care about that then you can always publish when you enter and leave any location or area. But this is saying no matter who enters and leaves they have no choice but to be monitored.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I'm quite tired of this sentiment. Should we get rid of our entire criminal code? Because laws making certain actions illegal are infringing upon our liberty, often with the intent of increasing our safety.

Should everyone have the liberty to drive drunk, public safety concerns be damned?

Piedmont's like a gated community for the parents of white collar poppers and psuedohipsters who think their family's socioeconomic status lets them understand irony. Hardly surprising that they'd do something like this.

Likewise, Marin County is like a county sized gated community with a few special areas for poor service workers.

It's hardly surprising that these kinds of places would be the first to start this kind of surveillance on a large scale - essentially a fearful elite is moving to try and protect their assets and have security from the lower and middle classes who they think should be seen and not heard.

In any case I'm sure it won't be long before some parent is using the system to try and figure out if their teenager is breaking curfew, while the teenagers will be proud of themselves for driving past the cameras with a neighbor's license plate printed out and clipped over their plates.